manfred wrote:Now, please read carefully what Josephus wrote.... does he say what the punishments are?

Now the greatest part of offences with us are capital. As if any one be guilty of adultery: if any one force a virgin: if any one be so impudent as to attempt sodomy with a male: or if, upon another’s making an attempt upon him, he submits to be so used.There is also a law for slaves of the like nature, that can never be avoided.

If special status could be granted to many states in India based on backwardness, then it can also be granted to remnant A. P which was deliberately rendered backward due to malicious policy of divide and rule.After division,percapita income of Telangana is Rs 20,000 /-more than that of remnant A.P.

Goodness. Please LOOK what he is talking about. He is talking about JEWISH HISTORY. Something LONG BEFORE he lived. Not about events in his days. He writes explaining Jewish culture to a Roman audience. He is talking about the texts we all know, not about what happens on the ground.

In ANY ancient law almost all offences are "capital", as there were no prisons. This does not mean that all such offences were always actually punished that way. You will be hard pressed to find a record of actual death sentences even in ancient Israel, and by the time Josephus wrote, the region was under ROMAN LAW.

Obviously the death penalty is ALLOWED in the view of HB authors for a quite a few offences, but legal PRACTICE has always been different from the suggestion of these writers.

In ANY ancient law almost all offences are "capital", as there were no prisons. This does not mean that all such offences were always actually punished that way. You will be hard pressed to find a record of actual death sentences even in ancient Israel

Now if there did not exist any prisons,it is even more dangerous to let the convicted criminal roam about freely as he is most likely pounce on others/continue with their previous habits thereby spreading fearlessness in the society.So the probability of getting rid of the convicted criminal by capital punishment in such societies is even higher.

If special status could be granted to many states in India based on backwardness, then it can also be granted to remnant A. P which was deliberately rendered backward due to malicious policy of divide and rule.After division,percapita income of Telangana is Rs 20,000 /-more than that of remnant A.P.

I don't know why you refuse to understand this. It is the POSSIBILITY of a severe punishment that serves as DETERRENT. In reality the death penalty even in ancient Israel was rarely carried out, except for proven murder. In ancient societies there was no prison system as such, not even in Rome. There were prisons in ancient Rome, but they served a different purpose... there was no crime that had a prison sentence attached to it. You could end up in a Roman prison either if your were a re-captured slave, awaiting collection by the owner, as a debtor until the debt was either forgiven or settled, or as a person awaiting execution.

In ancient Israel though, an actual death sentence was rare, because there was very stringent requirement of evidence for a start, and people were discouraged to accuse others in a court. I wonder, would you, if you knew your accusation could make your neighbour's wife a widow and his children beggars, with no fault of their own?

convicted criminal roam about

Like a man who was rude about his father, for example? Imagine your son told you to f*** off for whatever reason. If you told this to a judge, your son could be taken and killed. Is that is the case, what would a father normally do?

The reality was that people only rarely got to being "convicted", most commonly for murder.

There is a difference, a big difference, between a religious pamphlet and real life.

And as to your ill-informed claim about the "fastest growing religion" please read this

In particular you should pay attention to the dishonest way Muslims do their statistics, explained in some detail there... For example, a "Muslim" is anyone with one or more Muslim parents, even if they have left Islam for something else or have no religion at all. But when it comes to Christians, only those who attend church every Sunday are counted.

This is particularly relevant as only about 48% of Muslims ever attend a mosque in Europe.

Also, increases due to birth rate or immigration can hardly be indicators for a "true religion".

The very increase in Islamic violence and intolerance in recent years show us the extent of the crisis Islam is in. It has lost all credibility of even being a genuine religion in the world, and Muslims know that. With the Internet, Islamic teachings can no longer be hidden, and so it comes out like the puss from a boil, and no Muslim will be able to ignore it for ever.

manfred wrote:This very old saying ("by believing you shall see") is popular with many Muslims in one form or another, and SAM has often used it in various ways suggesting that you cannot really "understand" Islam unless you are a Muslim.

How would people answer this? Can a belief inform?

sounds like John 20:29 "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".

Hi,sound a bit like it but it quite different. This sentence is part of the story of Thomas. Thomas did not believe it when he heard Jesus had risen from the dead. When he actually met Jesus and put his fingers on his wounds, he believed, we are told. Jesus responds to it by saying “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

He does not condemn Thomas for his doubts, but he reminds people that there are and will be many who have not seen him. Jesus does not ask to suspend rational enquiry, but he says that belief is a gift from God.

SAM's approach is in reality demanding that rational enquiry is suspended: FIRST become a Muslim and THEN study Islam, according to Muslim rules only.

Let's put it this way: suppose Thomas the doubter had found the body of Jesus, would it then be reasonable to believe in a resurrection?

To me Islam makes certain claims which are verifiably false, so it would be a misplaced trust to accept Islam. Jesus ALLOWS Thomas first to touch and look, then to believe, SAM says FIRST believe then I show you stuff.

manfred wrote:In ancient Israel though, an actual death sentence was rare, because there was very stringent requirement of evidence for a start, and people were discouraged to accuse others in a court. I wonder, would you, if you knew your accusation could make your neighbour's wife a widow and his children beggars, with no fault of their own?

Like a man who was rude about his father, for example? Imagine your son told you to f*** off for whatever reason. If you told this to a judge, your son could be taken and killed. Is that is the case, what would a father normally do?

The reality was that people only rarely got to being "convicted", most commonly for murder.

There is a difference, a big difference, between a religious pamphlet and real life

.

You are using modern day liberal standards to judge people’s behavior with regards to their children.In conservative societies ,when there exist people who kill their own children for the sake of honor,is it a big deal that transgressors will be spared by parents.

During the thirty years war in Germany,fathers turned against their own sons and mothers turned against their own daughters believing that the other is destined to go to everlasting hell and they to everlasting heaven.Now according to what has been written at a secular humanism site,Abrahamic religions ensure that those following them are kept in a state of permanent childhood.So when even adults become child-like and are firmly in the grip of religion , out of madness induced by religion,they will not hesitate to sacrifice their offspring to capital punishment.

That exactly is the reason why people were ready to stone to death prostitutes or adulteresses in periods prior to and during the life of Jesus Christ.When people are even ready to sacrifice their offspring,will they care about their neighbours or will they think of stopping the spread of the gangrene from infecting the whole society?

If special status could be granted to many states in India based on backwardness, then it can also be granted to remnant A. P which was deliberately rendered backward due to malicious policy of divide and rule.After division,percapita income of Telangana is Rs 20,000 /-more than that of remnant A.P.

Not at all. Even Jesus, who you cannot accuse of modern liberalism, looked at things that way. When there is no accuser then there is no condemned. So don't accuse people. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

People in the ancient world were different many ways, but we have also a lot in common with them. For example, parents loved their children, husbands their wives, and people tried to live happy lives.

Above all, people could think as well we can today, but obviously they had not as much information and technology. In particular, the processes involved making decisions are much the same as those we use today.

If in the ancient world a wife had an affair a man would think though very similar questions as he would today. First, who actually knows? He would not appear to be seen as an "inadequate" husband. So even if he finds it hard to forgive his wife, he will try to patch things up if that is possible. If not, he may seek a divorce. Again he probably would not advertise the adultery as it makes him look bad.

There may be rare cases when the whole thing is public knowledge anyway, so anger and fury may then drag him and her to the court and accuse her. Then the ancient rules of evidence would kick in. Unless there is a confession by both parties, or some eye witnesses, which are rarely there in adultery, the case would fail.

However, both the wife and husband as well as the "boyfriend" would be asked to move to a different community and start a new life.

Similarly, if you have a son cursing his father, then the first thing the father would think of is the scandal, followed by a consideration for his son: this would be in the ancient world first and foremost, if my son is dead who will feed me when I am old?

He will therefore attempt a reconciliation, and if that fails, he will send away his son, in the hope that at least further harm and scandal has been averted.

Court cases in the ancient world were much rarer than they are today, and litigation was avoided if at all possible.

BTW.... you do not catch gangrene from adultery.

Also, the story of the adulteress in the gospel, is not a proper court case, it is more a like a lynch mob. As I keep telling you, since the Roman conquest of Jerusalem (63 BC) the law of the land was Roman Law, not Jewish law.

In particular you should pay attention to the dishonest way Muslims do their statistics, explained in some detail there... For example, a "Muslim" is anyone with one or more Muslim parents, even if they have left Islam for something else or have no religion at all. But when it comes to Christians, only those who attend church every Sunday are counted.This is particularly relevant as only about 48% of Muslims ever attend a mosque in Europe.

Also consider this: when you take away 50 million Muslims from areas that are virtually 100% Muslim, then the PERCENTAGE of Muslims left in the area does not change much, hardly at all. But if you add them to a non-Muslim population, clearly there is a change.

Also, increases due to birth rate or immigration can hardly be indicators for a "true religion".

The very increase in Islamic violence and intolerance in recent years show us the extent of the crisis Islam is in. It has lost all credibility of even being a genuine religion in the world, and Muslims know that. With the Internet, Islamic teachings can no longer be hidden, and so it comes out like the puss from a boil, and no Muslim will be able to ignore it for ever.

Please either start a new topic or write replying to the point made at the start.

manfred wrote: But when it comes to Christians, only those who attend church every Sunday are counted.This is particularly relevant as only about 48% of Muslims ever attend a mosque in Europe.

sum wrote:The brain/computer in a child is almost devoid of programming but life and info put into the child`s computer becomes the nature and belief system of the child. Please check on the Mental Immune System which helps to preserve what is programmed into the brain by filtering out contradictions while allowing supporting info to be used to confirm the installed programme

That is interesting. Inspite of being infected with the most virulent dogma on earth,the Mental Immune system of brain is successful only at a rate of 52%. sum can atleast rest in peace for time being.

If special status could be granted to many states in India based on backwardness, then it can also be granted to remnant A. P which was deliberately rendered backward due to malicious policy of divide and rule.After division,percapita income of Telangana is Rs 20,000 /-more than that of remnant A.P.

You always have curious ways of putting things.... Obviously in theocratic countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia, the percentage of people attending mosques is much greater. Even those who never pray or attend a mosque will still identify as Muslim, though.

I was mentioning the odd way Muslims concoct their statistics for Islam being the "fastest growing religion"... To them a Muslim is any person at all who does not specifically confess a different religion than Islam. Remember "everyone is born a Muslim"? But when they speak of Christians they point at some empty pews in a church as say Christians are only those people who attend church at least every Sunday.

In reality Islam grows only because Muslims tend to have more kids than Western people. In strict Muslim countries Islam is crumbling, such as in Iran, because people want their freedom from mullah control. In Africa Christianity is on the rise, as in parts of Asia, but in Europe religion is increasingly becoming a private thing.

And in any case, what does the Muslim population growing actually prove? Muslims use less condoms? Does it say anything at all about Islam? Are religions like mobile phone brands? You buy an Apple because lots of of people do, so you become a Muslim because there are lots of them?

When Muslims talk about "the fastest growing religion" it is only a distraction strategy to avoid discussing Islamic teachings as such. And this brings us back to the topic here:

When some issue with Islamic teaching is raised SAM and many other Muslims often claim you can only "understand" that part if you become a Muslim. This is also an avoidance strategy, and not an original one either: Ancient Gnostic cults made the same claim, but they were better at keeping their beliefs hidden (although not successful either).

Similarly, if you have a son cursing his father, then the first thing the father would think of is the scandal, followed by a consideration for his son: this would be in the ancient world first and foremost, if my son is dead who will feed me when I am old?

In those days when there is no guarantee that your only son can grow to adulthood due to lack of antibiotics,people fathered many children and then let them live in accordance with Darwin's principles.So even if one son is gone,another would look after them in their old age and their primary concern is thus solved.

If special status could be granted to many states in India based on backwardness, then it can also be granted to remnant A. P which was deliberately rendered backward due to malicious policy of divide and rule.After division,percapita income of Telangana is Rs 20,000 /-more than that of remnant A.P.

Yes, that is true to some extent, but the argument then also works the other way round: If life can be short and unpredictable you would want as many children as possible to provide for him as you get old. An estranged son may eventually be reconciled, a dead one will not.

If you look at the story of the biblical (not the Quranic) Abraham, you find an example of this... Ishmael was increasingly hostile to Isaac. Abraham was urged by Isaac's mother to act because she was concerned about his safety. Abraham could have argued that Ishmael is "bringing a curse" on his family and hence deserves to die. This would be in line with the ideas expressed in the much later Leviticus. He did not do that. He sent him away, with his mother and with provisions. We cannot say why he did that... But we can safely assume he had some compassion and love left for Ishmael, despite of his behaviour, which is explainable, but not excusable. Perhaps he was also hoping that as Ishmael gets older he will return with a different attitude.

Ishmael settled in a remote place and stayed away from his father, and did not return until his funeral, as while Abraham may well have hoped for a different outcome, on that occasion it did not happen.

If you look at the story of the biblical (not the Quranic) Abraham, you find an example of this... Ishmael was increasingly hostile to Isaac. Abraham was urged by Isaac's mother to act because she was concerned about his safety. Abraham could have argued that Ishmael is "bringing a curse" on his family and hence deserves to die. This would be in line with the ideas expressed in the much later Leviticus. He did not do that. He sent him away, with his mother and with provisions. We cannot say why he did that... But we can safely assume he had some compassion and love left for Ishmael, despite of his behaviour, which is explainable, but not excusable. Perhaps he was also hoping that as Ishmael gets older he will return with a different attitude.

Ishmael settled in a remote place and stayed away from his father, and did not return until his funeral, as while Abraham may well have hoped for a different outcome, on that occasion it did not happen.

If I am correct,Hagar through whom Abraham fathered Ismaill was not his lawfully wedded wife while Isaac's mother Sarah was his legitimate wife. Isn't that the case?Then it is only natural for Ismail to behave that way.

If special status could be granted to many states in India based on backwardness, then it can also be granted to remnant A. P which was deliberately rendered backward due to malicious policy of divide and rule.After division,percapita income of Telangana is Rs 20,000 /-more than that of remnant A.P.

Arabs are supposedly the descendants of Ismail and Jews of Isaac.However Abraham is said to have become a father at an age of 100+ years.So facts and fiction must have clearly been mixed in the above story.

If special status could be granted to many states in India based on backwardness, then it can also be granted to remnant A. P which was deliberately rendered backward due to malicious policy of divide and rule.After division,percapita income of Telangana is Rs 20,000 /-more than that of remnant A.P.

If I am correct,Hagar through whom Abraham fathered Ismaill was not his lawfully wedded wife while Isaac's mother Sarah was his legitimate wife. Isn't that the case?Then it is only natural for Ismail to behave that way.

Yes Abraham chose Hagar, Sarah's maid, as a sort of substitute mother, because Sarah was already old. When Ishmael was born he was Abraham's heir presumptive. But when against expectations Sarah conceived some 7 years later, his situation changed. So, it is not surprising that Ishmael was disappointed and angry, and that he was hostile to the new born Isaac. His behaviour is understandable specially for a child, but that does mean it was good behaviour.

Abraham's reaction was also perhaps not something he was proud of later. Rather than trying to help Ishmael through his emotions and trying to reassure him, he and his mother were sent away to fend for themselves. Ishmael was a traumatised boy and grew up to be an anti-social, bitter man, we are told. To some extent at least this is Abraham's fault.

Unlike in the Qur'an, biblical characters are not stiff idealised characters. Abraham, too, had his weaknesses and faults.

Arabs are supposedly the descendants of Ismail and Jews of Isaac.However Abraham is said to have become a father at an age of 100+ years.So facts and fiction must have clearly been mixed in the above story.

Age in biblical stories are often a symbolic way to bestow dignity and honour on people. Obviously Abraham lived a normal lifespan, and biblical writers knew what this lifespan was.

As to Ishmael and the Arabs, that is NOT in the bible at all. This is a MUCH later story exploited by Mohammed which in fact does not fit with the biblical account. Ishmael returned to Hebron only one more time, to attend the funeral of Abraham, the bible says. This obviously would not have been possible if he had lived in the Arabic peninsula. Also, the Muslim story does not make sense within itself... how can you be the "ancestor" of all the Arabs and at the same time lived amongst them and even learnt Arabic from them, as Muslims will tell you?

The Biblical stories are full of flawed and corrupt. as stated in Bible: "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."(2:120)

Nosuperstition wrote:Arabs are supposedly the descendants of Ismail and Jews of Isaac.However Abraham is said to have become a father at an age of 100+ years.So facts and fiction must have clearly been mixed in the above story.

In O.T wrote that Jesus was a false Messiah and he was born as an illegitimate child/bastard son. And his mother was a whore/prostitute.

Do you trust them?

Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."(2:120)

LOL, SAM, so your argument is the bible is "corrupt" because the bible says so? Even if Jeremiah actually meant that it would hardly be proof would it? Jeremiah speaks not of actual biblical texts, many of which were not even written yet in his days, he speaks of the "pen of the SCRIBES", i.e. people INTERPRETING and elaboration Jewish law.

In O.T wrote that Jesus was a false Messiah and he was born as an illegitimate child/bastard son. And his mother was a whore/prostitute.

And I am sure you have the reference for this incredible passage, right? The Hebrew bible talks about a man and his mother not yet born for hundreds of years. And in the past tense, too!